|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 10:40 JimmiC wrote:
How many Republican Senators who would be at risk would be willing to sacrifice themselves to put through a justice? While I think Introvert brings a interesting perspective that not filling it might be motivating to both sides in different ways, pushing one through would almost certainly motivate Dem voters more than the Reps. I was actually under the opposite impression: Republicans have the opportunity to potentially push through another SCJ that has conservative views, so if one of their own stands in their way, they would be sacrificing themselves to do the right thing. I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election. Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for. I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most.
You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ.
|
|
|
My bet is that they won't have enough votes to confirm before the inauguration. Murkowski and Collins are already out.
|
Those are the two they always give a free pass to. The only one who can get away with it besides them is Romney, and I'm not sure he'll do it.
|
|
|
On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 10:40 JimmiC wrote:
How many Republican Senators who would be at risk would be willing to sacrifice themselves to put through a justice? While I think Introvert brings a interesting perspective that not filling it might be motivating to both sides in different ways, pushing one through would almost certainly motivate Dem voters more than the Reps. I was actually under the opposite impression: Republicans have the opportunity to potentially push through another SCJ that has conservative views, so if one of their own stands in their way, they would be sacrificing themselves to do the right thing. I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election. Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for. I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move.
I hope you're right 
|
United States44325 Posts
On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 10:40 JimmiC wrote:
How many Republican Senators who would be at risk would be willing to sacrifice themselves to put through a justice? While I think Introvert brings a interesting perspective that not filling it might be motivating to both sides in different ways, pushing one through would almost certainly motivate Dem voters more than the Reps. I was actually under the opposite impression: Republicans have the opportunity to potentially push through another SCJ that has conservative views, so if one of their own stands in their way, they would be sacrificing themselves to do the right thing. I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election. Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for. I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right
There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session.
|
I have yet to see a confirmed no from a Republican senator besides some interviews on a hypothetical situation. Even if (big ifs) Murkowski and Collins reject it, and manage to get Romney on board (another big if) as the McCain-esque principled vote like the skinny repeal vote, it's still short one. I wouldn't put my faith in Grassley or Graham, who have signalled in the past that they wouldn't vote on a SCJ on an election year, to be consistent.
Besides, these questions are usually framed as before an election, but after Nov. 3 they could still push forward with the vote during the lame duck period in case of a Biden presidency and not have lied. There's some wringing over Kelly likely taking Arizona's senate seat in the special election and potentially being there to save the SC seat by Nov. 30, but I'd consider this a lost seat effectively if you're banking on several miracles to save you.
Interestingly there's some bipartisan interest in holding hearings for a SCJ. "Sixty-seven percent of Americans said in a Marquette University poll released Saturday that hearings should be held...Results did not significantly vary along party lines, with 71 percent of independents, 68 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Democrats saying confirmation hearings should be held." Though I expect the Democratic interest to crater after RBG's passing.
Both Republicans and Democrats take the seat seriously, "with 89 percent of Biden backers saying it was “very” or “somewhat” important and 85 percent of Trump supporters saying the same". High quality polling on a national level and for three swing states shows that Biden is more favoured on nominating a justice. [Source]
"In a New York Times/Siena College survey released hours before the news of Ginsburg's death, voters in Maine, North Carolina and Arizona said they preferred Biden to select the next Supreme Court justice by 12 percentage points. Biden received 53 percent of voters' support, compared to President Donald Trump's 41 percent." (Note how those three are also holding Senate races that are currently favoured slightly Democratic, except in Arizona where it seems almost guaranteed Kelly wins for now. NC and AZ are swing states that are leaning slightly Democratic as well.)
"A Fox News poll released September 13 found that likely voters nationwide favored Biden over Trump when it comes to Supreme Court nominations, with Biden leading by seven percentage points." [Source]
It's a change of pace from Biden seeking to frame the election around Trump's COVID failures, and Trump defending conservative values, the economy and preserving law and order. Not sure if it means a whole lot if RBG's seat gets a Trump nominee anyways, but I'd bet it's animating Democrats or anyone regretting staying home or voting third party in 2016 and are agonized at seeing two or probably three SCJs go Trump's way. There will be pressure on a potential President Biden to pack the courts, but unless he's possessed by the ghost of FDR, I think he'll have to live with a 6-3 conservative SC.
|
|
|
On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 10:40 JimmiC wrote:
How many Republican Senators who would be at risk would be willing to sacrifice themselves to put through a justice? While I think Introvert brings a interesting perspective that not filling it might be motivating to both sides in different ways, pushing one through would almost certainly motivate Dem voters more than the Reps. I was actually under the opposite impression: Republicans have the opportunity to potentially push through another SCJ that has conservative views, so if one of their own stands in their way, they would be sacrificing themselves to do the right thing. I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election. Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for. I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session.
Honestly this seems more plausible to me. Leave it open in the hopes of energizing voters, lose the election and the Senate, and then move forward even after the people have spoken. McConnell certainly wouldn't mind, and if Collins loses I don't think she'll give a crap either.
|
On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 10:40 JimmiC wrote:
How many Republican Senators who would be at risk would be willing to sacrifice themselves to put through a justice? While I think Introvert brings a interesting perspective that not filling it might be motivating to both sides in different ways, pushing one through would almost certainly motivate Dem voters more than the Reps. I was actually under the opposite impression: Republicans have the opportunity to potentially push through another SCJ that has conservative views, so if one of their own stands in their way, they would be sacrificing themselves to do the right thing. I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election. Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for. I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session.
Oh, between November and January, after all the Republican senators have won their seats again and regardless of whether or not Trump wins? That's a good point.
|
On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 10:40 JimmiC wrote:
How many Republican Senators who would be at risk would be willing to sacrifice themselves to put through a justice? While I think Introvert brings a interesting perspective that not filling it might be motivating to both sides in different ways, pushing one through would almost certainly motivate Dem voters more than the Reps. I was actually under the opposite impression: Republicans have the opportunity to potentially push through another SCJ that has conservative views, so if one of their own stands in their way, they would be sacrificing themselves to do the right thing. I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election. Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for. I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough?
No.
Three reasons.
1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything.
2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically.
3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base.
If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do.
|
On September 20 2020 01:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 10:40 JimmiC wrote:
How many Republican Senators who would be at risk would be willing to sacrifice themselves to put through a justice? While I think Introvert brings a interesting perspective that not filling it might be motivating to both sides in different ways, pushing one through would almost certainly motivate Dem voters more than the Reps. I was actually under the opposite impression: Republicans have the opportunity to potentially push through another SCJ that has conservative views, so if one of their own stands in their way, they would be sacrificing themselves to do the right thing. I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election. Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for. I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Oh, between November and January, after all the Republican senators have won their seats again and regardless of whether or not Trump wins? That's a good point.
No real price either in that no one will remember until the next SC nomination which won't be for a while unless Trump wins and talks Thomas into retiring and/or Breyer goes (under either admin).
It's not entirely improbable Republicans could take a ~7-2 advantage in the Supreme court they would hold for decades (it would wane over time, but the adv lasts decades).
|
On September 20 2020 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 01:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 10:40 JimmiC wrote:
How many Republican Senators who would be at risk would be willing to sacrifice themselves to put through a justice? While I think Introvert brings a interesting perspective that not filling it might be motivating to both sides in different ways, pushing one through would almost certainly motivate Dem voters more than the Reps. I was actually under the opposite impression: Republicans have the opportunity to potentially push through another SCJ that has conservative views, so if one of their own stands in their way, they would be sacrificing themselves to do the right thing. I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election. Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for. I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Oh, between November and January, after all the Republican senators have won their seats again and regardless of whether or not Trump wins? That's a good point. No real price either in that no one will remember until the next SC nomination which won't be for a while unless Trump wins and talks Thomas into retiring and/or Breyer goes (under either admin). It's not entirely improbable Republicans could take a ~7-2 advantage in the Supreme court they would hold for decades (it would wane over time, but the adv lasts decades).
Agreed. For this upcoming SCJ spot, isn't there a way that Democratic senators can filibuster and force discussions to perpetuate without a 60+ majority vote (to end discussions and to finally decide to accept the appointment or not, which would lead to the 50+ majority victory)? I feel like there's some sort of fine print that the minority of Democratic senators can still try to exploit in prolonging the process, if they had the courage to actually do it.
|
|
|
On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 10:40 JimmiC wrote:
How many Republican Senators who would be at risk would be willing to sacrifice themselves to put through a justice? While I think Introvert brings a interesting perspective that not filling it might be motivating to both sides in different ways, pushing one through would almost certainly motivate Dem voters more than the Reps. I was actually under the opposite impression: Republicans have the opportunity to potentially push through another SCJ that has conservative views, so if one of their own stands in their way, they would be sacrificing themselves to do the right thing. I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election. Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for. I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points.
I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff.
|
|
|
On September 20 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election.
Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for.
I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. If a blue wave happens and there is enough pressure to actually change and fix things he might have been right and I would have to eat some crow. This is going to be one of the most interesting and intense elections of my lifetime because there is actually a very dramatic difference between the candidates and the parties. And there is way more people passionately pissed off. There seems to be so much dry tinder and a whole bunch of sparks. This could go so many dramatically different ways. Many of them frightening.
I think the fact that we went through 4 years of Trump and will end up with, at best, Biden, shows that his reasoning was incredibly naive. It's MANA(Make America Normal Again) all the way down.
|
|
|
On September 20 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election.
Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for.
I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. If a blue wave happens and there is enough pressure to actually change and fix things he might have been right and I would have to eat some crow. This is going to be one of the most interesting and intense elections of my lifetime because there is actually a very dramatic difference between the candidates and the parties. And there is way more people passionately pissed off. There seems to be so much dry tinder and a whole bunch of sparks. This could go so many dramatically different ways. Many of them frightening.
Unfortunately, a tremendous amount of damage has been done. Nobody really talks about it, but McConnell blockaded a ton of nominees for various federal courts from I think 2012 onward. Eventually democrats nuked the filibuster, but then the GOP got a senate majority in 2014. The end result has been that of the judges on the appellate courts, the courts directly below the Supreme Court, over thirty percent of them have been appointed by Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
